I wouldn't accept that the 7D is 'far superior for sports action photography' over the 5DII. It has the edge on AF and fps - but not that much - as it then loses out on iso. From experience it is in wildlife where the 7D pulls away more.

Interesting view and actually I appreciate that from someone who has used the 5D2 and 7D as extensively as you have. I've used the 5D2 a few times (borrowed) but only just recently bought one since the prices are now so low and I'm glad to know it will be more useful for sports photography than I thought it would be. I don't think the general consensus (going by what I've heard and read on this site and elsewhere) is that the 7D only has a small edge on the 5D2 for AF and fps. It also has an edge over the 5D2 on weather sealing which is certainly beneficial for outdoor sports.

I feel that reading something into Flickr stats would apply only to Flickr users. Not that many serious or pro togs using Flickr - they have their own websites.

True, stats can be misleading if applied to populations that are not well represented by the sample population. If there are few pro photographers posting to Flickr as you say then any insights can not be applied to pros. Several of the comments about the Flickr data questioned the applicability and from a statistics perspective I think that there could be a bias in the "type of user".

I just copied the Flickr usage stats for Canon into Excel and added it up for fun (fun?) to see what it looks like for all camera types. The "avg. daily users" is a one day snapshot so the numbers I have a different from what 7enderbender got and the "one day" thing is itself a limitation. Data from yesterday is a total of 47,370 members posted a photo with a Canon camera. Of those 34,218 (72%) were from a DSLR. Of those 8,617 (25%) were from a 5D, 5D2, or 7D and 25,601 (75%) were from any other Canon DSLR.

I agree it's not something we can draw big conclusions from but it's interesting.

Hi. I'll probably pick up a new camera next year, and am weighing up the pros and cons of APS-C vs FF. I'm curious - why is there so much interest in the 5Diii compared with a 7Dii? A 5Diii with 7D build, AF and speed would seem to be many people's dream come true. I appreciate many of the benefits of FF - shallower depth of field, less noise at higher ISOs etc. But with all of the hype, you start to think that the only benefit of the APS-C sensor is the lower price and 1.6x crop for longer lenses, but for everything else it is an inferior product. If a 5Diii was virtually identical to a 7Dii except it had more megapixels on a larger sensor, would the joys and benefits of using a FF camera really be that noticeable in the real world? Do people who have made the switch from APS-C to FF agree that it is the best decision that they've ever made and wish they had done it sooner? Or after making the change, have you been left wondering what all the fuss is about? Would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.

Personally I think the whole FF thing is mostly hype I have a 1D3 and a 5D2 personally i absolutely love the APS-H sensor i see it as having your cake and eat it too, faster speed and get a bit more out of the tele end, only problem is the 1 series is very heavy, i like the size of the 5D but since i was used to the 1 it is taking some getting used to the massive reduction in features on the 5D it feels really bare bones compared to the 1 series. and in low light AF there is no contest the 1 series KILLS the 5D i really think the 5D Af is utter rubbish and i hate it but I bought it for the FF sensor to shoot landscape and portraits so it does the job i got it for and the AF is fine in these tasks I just wouldnt count on being able to get anything that is moving much. I've been contemplating getting a 7D purely for the crop to use with long lenses and the faster AF I want a smaller body than the 1 and sharing batterys with the 5D seems like a nice blend for travelling.

Dont get too hung up on the whole Full frame is better than everything else thing and remember there are downsides to full frame such as loosing your long end. here is an example take a 300 f4 lenson a full frame whack on a tele converter and you get 420mm @ 5.6 but on a 7D that lens stays f4 one full stop faster! and has the effeective reach of 480mm! then if you put that 1.4 teleconverter on the 7D with that lens suddenly you have 672mm at f5.6! and you have IS.

I wouldnt mind hearing from people with both 1Dmk3 and 7D about how they compare (I'm going to keep my 1D anyway and maybe convert it to IR down the track but with the price of a 7D so cheap now its the best bang for buck teleconverter you can get i think. I like having 2 cameras one for the wider or general purpose and one with a long lens for getting in close.

briansquibb

Interesting view and actually I appreciate that from someone who has used the 5D2 and 7D as extensively as you have. I've used the 5D2 a few times (borrowed) but only just recently bought one since the prices are now so low and I'm glad to know it will be more useful for sports photography than I thought it would be. I don't think the general consensus (going by what I've heard and read on this site and elsewhere) is that the 7D only has a small edge on the 5D2 for AF and fps. It also has an edge over the 5D2 on weather sealing which is certainly beneficial for outdoor sports.

Most sports are (relatively) slow moving and can be anticipated so the slightly slower AF speed of the 5DII can be worked around. With wildlife the extra speed and unpredictability of the subjects places the AF speed higher up the priority list.

For sport one should be using SERVO and the tracking speed of the 5DII is not noticably different from that of the 7D. However the ability of the 5DII to happily fire away at iso3200 gives better shutter speed than the 7D, meaning less blurred contents. Unless you are planning on large prints I recommend using sRAW1 (10mps) for sports/action as it gives sharper pictures and a larger buffer for continuous shooting

Both the 7D and 5DII are good cameras and having both means the choice is pretty obvious when going out. Unfortunately people get obsessed with headline numbers and theoretical advantages without really considering the real implications in the field that they are shooting. How many people in the consumer market really consider in depth the details - like what it is benefit of 8fps over 5fps to themselves and what they are really going shoot? I believe that most people in the 7D/5DII area have cameras that can take better pictures than the owners - yet there is this continual push by them to get the latest and greatest as if the photos they take are going to magically improve. With todays cameras the best way to improve IQ is still through top lens. You can take it from me that a 400F/2.8 IS will give significantly better IQ than a 400 f/5.6 - on a 5DII the AF is noticably faster because of the use on the responsive AF point.

Just remember that AF is affected by the lens - so a quick AF lens on the front of a 5D2 is as fast as a slow lens on a 7D. So on a 5D2 always try to get a lens that is F/2.8 or faster. The 70-200F/2.8 II is ideal as a walkabout lens for the 5DII - you will have few AF problems for football, soccer, rugby etc and also get top IQ at the same time. By putting a 1.4 converter on the 70-200 turns it into a f/4 lens - which does slow the AF down.

The best single camera is still the 1D4 which has the IQ of the 5D and better fps and AF than the 7D.

As always it is a question of money and what you plan to photograph. I am a just a photographer without speciality - I take all types of subjects. Some people specialise - such as Birds In Flight (BIF) where their requirements are much more focussed - and so is their choice of camera. The BIF togs camera is still the 1D4 followed by the 7D - they are not that keen on the 1DX as it means losing F8 focussing and the extra reach of the APS-H. Landscapers go for the 1DsIII/5DII as their subjects are static and IQ is paramount.

When I first saw this topic, I expected the usual "full frame is professional/APS-C is amateur" rants. Thankfully, it hasn't turned out that way (although there have been some, "my sensor is bigger than your sensor" postings)

Still, I'm not sure I'm any closer to coming to any clear conclusions. Granted, it can boil down to personal preferences and needs, but I still have a difficult time parsing the thread for obvious distinctions between APS-C and Full Frame.

It sounds to me that the differences are rather subtle and seem to have as much to do with the "look" of the image and shooting style (narrower depth of field, for example) than with any clear, visible difference in image quality.

Many of those posting have indicated that they feel full frame offers superior performance for landscape and other static or semi-static subjects. But, I wonder if that translates into practical or theoretical differences. If one shoots with the idea of enlarging the images to 16x20 or larger, are the differences visible? What about 11x14 or 8x10. What about those who shoot primarily for publication? Are the differences visible once an image is translated into print?

I shoot with a 7D and to be honest, I have a hard time imagining that the practical differences would be that great with a larger sensor. But, then I don't really go for the oversize prints and my ultimate objective is to get work published in books or magazines.

The main problems or complaints I've had about the 7D in terms of image quality has been that I do feel that certain areas of an image under certain conditions can have visible noise on-screen. (Although this does not always translate into being visible in print). For example, if I have an image with a large amount of plain, cloudless blue sky, upon close examination, some of the images will appear mottled in the sky (instead of completely smooth.) But, some of this results from the wide differences in brightness between a sky and other portions of the image (exposing for the one means under or overexposing for the other and attempting to repair in processing).

My other frustration has been chromatic aberration. Back lit subjects with sharp edges that have significant fringing that can't always be fixed (minimize the magenta and you maximize the cyan, for example). Again, I don't know if that would be improved by a different sensor or not.

Bottom line of this rambling post: Do those who use both a 7D and a 5d II really see a difference in the final product? And if so, do you feel the differences are visible at say 8x10. Do you feel the differences are visible at ISO 100-400 or only at higher ISOs?

Now, I know that preferences are personal and can only be ultimately decided by the photographer after having used both cameras, but I do wonder if the 5DII/7D dual body owners would be willing to give an honest assessment of the differences they can actually see in image quality.

The 7D mk II! Maybe, at some point, I will borrow a friend's 5d II... and then, will hopefully not get hooked with even more gear greed...

Both the 7D II and the 5D III will be Uber. But, they will be for totally different purposes. And whiners will likely complain about the 7D image quality and noise levels. Whiners will also complain about the 5D one and how it isn't as good as the whatever and threaten to go to Nikon.

I own both a 5DII and 7D. For professional work I use the 5DII 90% of the time but for personal use I use the 7D 90% of the time. I have always only owned and rented full frame until I bought the 7D earlier this year. Initially I bought it out of fascination for what the 1.6 factor would do for all my lenses but soon loved the other features including the focusing system and the 8fps (something I thought I'd have no use for).

Having both cameras I think is a great combo for me personally. They compliment each other and fill in the gaps of limitations.

briansquibb

Bottom line of this rambling post: Do those who use both a 7D and a 5d II really see a difference in the final product? And if so, do you feel the differences are visible at say 8x10. Do you feel the differences are visible at ISO 100-400 or only at higher ISOs?

Now, I know that preferences are personal and can only be ultimately decided by the photographer after having used both cameras, but I do wonder if the 5DII/7D dual body owners would be willing to give an honest assessment of the differences they can actually see in image quality.

There is a marked difference at high ISO. You get at least one stop more on the 5dII - I dont even stop to think about shooting at 1600iso with the 5DII whereas I wonder at 800iso on the 7D. Lets face it, both cameras give really good IQ, but it seems easier to get on the 5DII as the images from the 7D are not so tolerant of pp work - such as cropping or exposure changes.

I believe I see more detail coming through on large prints with the 5DII, but that is not backed up with a scientific study. Again more so when cropping has happened.

I agree with melbournite - they compliment each other and fill in the gaps of limitations

Logged

niccyboy

Bottom line of this rambling post: Do those who use both a 7D and a 5d II really see a difference in the final product? And if so, do you feel the differences are visible at say 8x10. Do you feel the differences are visible at ISO 100-400 or only at higher ISOs?

Now, I know that preferences are personal and can only be ultimately decided by the photographer after having used both cameras, but I do wonder if the 5DII/7D dual body owners would be willing to give an honest assessment of the differences they can actually see in image quality.

There is a marked difference at high ISO. You get at least one stop more on the 5dII - I dont even stop to think about shooting at 1600iso with the 5DII whereas I wonder at 800iso on the 7D. Lets face it, both cameras give really good IQ, but it seems easier to get on the 5DII as the images from the 7D are not so tolerant of pp work - such as cropping or exposure changes.

I believe I see more detail coming through on large prints with the 5DII, but that is not backed up with a scientific study. Again more so when cropping has happened.

I agree with melbournite - they compliment each other and fill in the gaps of limitations

I agree. They do compliment each other.

I also agree about the ISO.. I'd never put the 7d above 640, yet regularly have the 5d at 1600.

Logged

JAWphoto

Just depends what you use it for. I have 2x 5DmkII. I shoot mostly with short prime lenses, so I need full frame to take advantage of these (they wouldn't work well with a crop). I don't shoot with telephotos, so there is no advantage of a cropped sensor for me, only a disadvantage. That said, the AF on the 5D is total garbage. It is in no way a sports camera.

briansquibb

That said, the AF on the 5D is total garbage. It is in no way a sports camera.

5DII AF is OK with the right techniques - good enough for motorsports, soccer, football etc. You have to work at it - it is accurate in reasonable light. Nobody is suggesting you would buy it for sports - just that it can be used very sucessfully in sports if pushed just as a 7D can be used as a portrait camera - I have got some really good animal portraits from the 7D just as I have got good motorsports pictures from the 5DII. 5DII AF is as good as any of the xxD range - it is just that the 7D is better for moving objects.

To say that 5DII AF is total garbage is garbage in itself - I suppose you do full time manual focussing then?

Logged

mreco99

I am in the same situation as the OP, will be getting a new camera, probably cant wait to see what happens with the 5D replacement, so im after either the 7D or the 5D2, i cant decide. Im coming from a 450D and no L lenses. (mostly use 450D and the EF-s 60mm Macro lens)

Why does everyone think shallow DOF is an advantage, its a negative point for the 5D2 for me, as I do use a smallish room at home as a home studio for stock libraries half the time. The other half of the time im out and about taking pictures. (can i mention my smugmug account here for examples?)

Its a really hard decision and i cant justify two cameras.

My main desire is clarity, IQ. I can live without many fps, i can get by with 9 points of focus, ill put up with less reach from the same lens, but i want the best looking images. Less DOF is the only thing really holding me back from the 5D.

briansquibb

Why does everyone think shallow DOF is an advantage, its a negative point for the 5D2 for me,

I would say you are a prime candidate for the 5DII. I dont believe DOF should be an issue - just shutdown the aperture by a stop - Shoot at f2.8 instead of f2 for example. You will find that most lens are sharpest between f5.6 and f8 so that will actually be working for you.

Why does everyone think shallow DOF is an advantage, its a negative point for the 5D2 for me, as I do use a smallish room at home as a home studio for stock libraries half the time. The other half of the time im out and about taking pictures. (can i mention my smugmug account here for examples?)

My main desire is clarity, IQ. I can live without many fps, i can get by with 9 points of focus, ill put up with less reach from the same lens, but i want the best looking images. Less DOF is the only thing really holding me back from the 5D.

What exactly is shallow DoF holding you back? That's the first time I've heard that as a negative! Why? Because if you want deeper DoF, all you have to do is stop down. Stopping down by 1.3 stops will give you equivalent DoF to APS-C. With a FF camera, you can stop down even further before diffraction starts to cost you sharpness, because of the lower pixel density.

Most people like shallow DoF because it blurs out the background, isolating your subject. That's generally desirable for portraits, and other types of shooting as well. For a good example of that, see the TDP review of the 85mm f/1.2L II - about halfway down the page, step through the mouse-over aperture comparison. YMMV, but most would prefer the wider aperture shots which result in a cleaner background. The f/16 shot is close to what you'd get with a P&S in terms of DoF.

In a studio setting, a shallow DoF is often not required since you have control over the background. If you go into a pro studio, you'll find they often shoot at f/5.6-f/8 (sweet spot for most lenses, delivering the sharpest result) - they have pull-down backgrounds and monolights, the former provides subject isolation, and the latter delivers plenty of light so f/8 isn't an issue. OTOH, when you shoot an outdoor session (or even indoors with some clutter in your house ), a shallow DoF is preferable.

Honestly, for the use you describe the 5DII seems like the optimum choice - it's excellent as a studio camera.

mreco99

I know it wasnt my topic but thanks, that makes sence, and stupidly i never even considered stopping down a little bit more. I stop down as much as i dare with my 450D (up to f11) when doing small item studio stuff to get larger dof.For scale purposes imagine a football filling most of your frame,, try getting that all in focus and sharp as possible. Thats why i like lots of dof.

Is using the 50mm prime lens on a 5D2 a good idea for this scale, as DOF will be greater that say the 100mm macro